Opinion: Do more people pass Train Driver Psychometrics these days?

[16.19]

Exactly. Like I said , good luck if the others are getting it wrong. It was a boring test , but in my opinion the easiest by far.

Indeed, a very boring test but like you have said; easy. Driving trains is not an exciting career and it takes a certain type of person to be able to cope with long periods of working on your own

 

[LCC106]

Ah yes, fair point, I’d forgotten you get the questions in advance but definitely agree on the spoon feeding!

 

[AverageJoe]

Well I’ve been doing the group bourdon test practicing for the TPE assessment and I’m getting 9 rows down and that’s with the odd mistake, so I can assure you I won’t be passing the enhanced.

it ain’t easy, maybe there is just more smart people around now

 

[LCC106]

It’s about accuracy as much as speed so 9 rows is quite good if only an odd mistake. Keep at it!

 

[Bagdale]

Well I’ve been doing the group bourdon test practicing for the TPE assessment and I’m getting 9 rows down and that’s with the odd mistake, so I can assure you I won’t be passing the enhanced.

it ain’t easy, maybe there is just more smart people around now

Nobody knows what the enhanced bench mark is as this is different for each toc. I wouldn’t beat yourself up, the more you practice the better your chance.


I’ve heard that only the paper tests are enhanced, the computer tests are the same bench mark regardless of whether the toc is standard/enhanced. Is anyone more able to confirm this along with whether the MMI can be enhanced?

 

[AverageJoe]

Thanks guys, I’m gonna keep practicing and give it my best but I feel like I need to be rain man to do any better

 

[baz962]

Well I’ve been doing the group bourdon test practicing for the TPE assessment and I’m getting 9 rows down and that’s with the odd mistake, so I can assure you I won’t be passing the enhanced.

it ain’t easy, maybe there is just more smart people around now

I was only doing nine rows and my scores were high enough for every toc.

 

[387star]

Nobody knows what the enhanced bench mark is as this is different for each toc. I wouldn’t beat yourself up, the more you practice the better your chance.


I’ve heard that only the paper tests are enhanced, the computer tests are the same bench mark regardless of whether the toc is standard/enhanced. Is anyone more able to confirm this along with whether the MMI can be enhanced?

Computer test scores vary
C2C require enhanced for the computer tests

 

[ComUtoR]

Or how about myself - I sat the tests 3 years ago at a TOC that as far as I can tell only requires a standard Pass. Am I dangerous? Am I a lesser driver some how?

Dangerous and lesser are very loaded words but there may be a correlation between lower test scores and Drivers who then have incidents.

I say 'may' because some of the numbers I've seen do lean that way but without some serious crunching I wouldn't be certain. There are too many factors that are involved in an incident to apportion something simple as a test score but the numbers do show a pattern.

 

[L401CJF]

Going back to the idea of the forums making it easier, I do agree it can help people pass interviews with an unfair advantage. On the one hand, anyone who has to ask what they need to know for the interview generally should really have had the common sense to research the company off their own back. On the other, far too many people ask what specific questions there will be in the MMI and it really frustrates me that people share them. It’s part of an aptitude assessment to see how YOUR NATURAL REACTION would be thinking about the questions as they arise, not a well rehearsed response. Maybe that’s why not everyone cuts it at the end of their course.

I'd agree here, when I did mine I read through these forums to see how the real tests differed to the practice materials but other than that I just did the practice questions from the OPC a few times.

What baffles me is the amount of people who not only want to know all the MMI/DMI questions, but those who don't even bother to search the forum first. There are hundreds of threads on the assessments, their contents, the MMI, MMI format, even the MMI questions, yet people still start a new thread asking these same questions where the answer to all the above can be found using the search function in a few seconds.

It is concerning the amount of people wanting these high responsibility jobs where dealing to on the spot situations is the most important part of the job, yet want everything spoon feeding rather than finding the info for themselves.

Even reading the job description tells you what's they're looking for and should help you come up with your own experience examples as to how you suit the role.

Rant over, think I've drifted OT a bit!

 

[baz962]

Computer test scores vary
C2C require enhanced for the computer tests

I'm starting to wonder if the opc like to confuse people. All joking aside , when I did my tests , I actually asked the question. I was told in the computer room at opc that the computer tests did not have enhanced , only one standard.

 

[Stigy]

I'm starting to wonder if the opc like to confuse people. All joking aside , when I did my tests , I actually asked the question. I was told in the computer room at opc that the computer tests did not have enhanced , only one standard.

I was told this too.

I was also told that the only enhanced tests were the Group Bourdon (although all operators do this, there’s an enhanced level), the DFFT and the additional tests you sit at home (the VSE etc). I was also told the latter didn’t count towards one of your two “goes” (makes sense, since you do it at home and it’s unmonitored, right?), but have heard views to the contrary here.

 

[baz962]

I was told this too.

I was also told that the only enhanced tests were the Group Bourdon (although all operators do this, there’s an enhanced level), the DFFT and the additional tests you sit at home (the VSE etc). I was also told the latter didn’t count towards one of your two “goes” (makes sense, since you do it at home and it’s unmonitored, right?), but have heard views to the contrary here.

I was told that you only have two goes at the vse and the magnificent seven sjt too. However , that would only count you out of tocs that use them.
So let me post my story. Did psychometric tests with great northern/TL. On the day , some people got sent home after the group bourdon and a couple of other tests , because they only passed to national. This was before the dials , tones and dfft. I then did the second day at Watford and was told by the gentleman who did our computer tests and my mmi , that the computer tests were only national and they didn't have an enhanced one.
I didn't get that job at the dmi.
I then got invited to do the vse and magnificent seven sjt by another toc. While waiting on the results , I had been invited to an assessment day with another toc and while there was told I only had to do vse and magnificent seven sjt. I said I had just done them and awaiting results. Toc said they would accept the result themselves ( even though I did them for a different toc ) and the opc said I couldn't do them for six months , so had to hope I passed them and sent me home. They said it's because you only have two goes and I could literally fail , while still waiting for the results from having done them a couple of weeks earlier and that's my two lives gone and that it would be hard for them to keep track. They also told me that I should only apply to one toc at a time and asked me to pull one application and go with one. All of this came from the opc and in person , not via email , phone etc.

 

[387star]

I'm starting to wonder if the opc like to confuse people. All joking aside , when I did my tests , I actually asked the question. I was told in the computer room at opc that the computer tests did not have enhanced , only one standard.

C2C in 2015 would not accept my score on the grey flashing box. I hit a few times in error as my eyes played tricks on me. A load of other companies had no issue with my score.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I strongly believe that if you’re applying internally, you do have a greater chance generally than an external candidate, be that because of a rapport you already have with local depot management, or from the skills you’ve picked up from within the industry so far.

Certainly not the case for my TOC!

Rarely take internal, average seems about 1:8 and DMI are never with your local managers. A lot more ex BTP/Military gone through driver training in the last 4 years, only 3 internal from 3 of the 4 local depots in that time.

At Crewe they have a 'no trainee' rule, so it's literally impossible to be hired internally

 

[craigybagel]

Certainly not the case for my TOC!

Rarely take internal, average seems about 1:8 and DMI are never with your local managers. A lot more ex BTP/Military gone through driver training in the last 4 years, only 3 internal from 3 of the 4 local depots in that time.

At Crewe they have a 'no trainee' rule, so it's literally impossible to be hired internally

It definitely varies a lot between TOCs, and indeed between depots even within the same TOC. Assuming you're at LNWR Crewe - that particular TOC has taken on plenty of internal trainee drivers, just not at Crewe (though there did advertise there about 3 years ago - did anyone actually get taken on that time?).

Now there's a weird circle effect, where LNWR recruit for qualified drivers, with many moving down from TfW. The TfW vacancies this creates are then filled with trainees, often internally with former guards. The guards vacancies at TfW then in turn get filled with qualified conductors moving up from LNWR!

Personally I don't believe I'd have ever achieved the skills to make it through the driver recruitment process, and indeed the training itself, if I hadn't spent several years building my career up through other railway roles before hand - but then I was very lucky to find myself at a TOC that has a long history of recruiting internally for trainee drivers.

Dangerous and lesser are very loaded words but there may be a correlation between lower test scores and Drivers who then have incidents.

I say 'may' because some of the numbers I've seen do lean that way but without some serious crunching I wouldn't be certain. There are too many factors that are involved in an incident to apportion something simple as a test score but the numbers do show a pattern.

Indeed - but some of the OPs words seemed rather loaded as well so I felt the need to intervene.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there's a correlation between lower scores and then later lower performance - surely that's one of the points of the tests after all, to pick out those most likely to be "good" drivers?

The issue I'm having is that those of us who only ever sat the tests at TOCs that works to the standard level will never know how we compare to the enhanced standard, or indeed what percentage of us would have passed to enhanced.

 

[43066]

If you're worried about the standards of drivers coming through the system now, what about the old hand ex BR drivers who never had to sit psychometrics at all - are they a liability?

The ones who were a liability wouldn’t have made it this far, so it’s probably safe to assume those who remain are pretty good!

r how about myself - I sat the tests 3 years ago at a TOC that as far as I can tell only requires a standard Pass. Am I dangerous? Am I a lesser driver some how?

So did I to be fair. I have no idea what my tests scores were. I don’t really care either as it’s completely irrelevant once you have a key. Of course it’s quite possible that your score would also have been good enough for an enhanced TOC.

At the of the day, once you’ve been driving for a few years, your safety record speaks volumes and is the only thing that matters.

I think that by and large internal candidates are often seen as a safer option. When it comes to recruitment, all the recruiters have to go on with external candidates is what they they tell themselves. For internals, they'll already have all their records on hand.

Also, the railway is a difficult industry that doesn't suit everybody. It's something of a way of life that takes some getting used to - and many have come into it from outside and failed to make that adjustment. For internal staff, going driving doesn't usually involve much of a change of routine - it's often similar shifts working out of a similar location.

I'm not saying externals can't make that adjustment - of course they can! There are plenty of excellent drivers out there who came straight into the role from outside of the railway. But internals are less of a gamble in that respect.

Not sure about that one - certainly the trainers were I started claimed to prefer external people (after checking there were no ex railway people in the group)! This was because, so they said, they liked a blank canvas rather than someone who had pre-existing bad habits. Throughout training and since I’ve met some shocking internals and externals, and excellent examples of both.

Admittedly this probably varies by area. In the London area there are few guards (or other grades) who might naturally apply for driver roles, and many driver vacancies, so you’ll naturally see a lot more externals.

I’d also observe that driving and guarding are completely different jobs and going driving shouldn’t be seen as a line of “promotion”, as some on the railway seem to view it. Of course that works both ways; I like to think I’m a reasonable driver, but suspect I’d make a pretty shocking guard.

 

[the sniper]

I’d also observe that driving and guarding are completely different jobs and going driving shouldn’t be seen as a line of “promotion”, as some on the railway seem to view it. Of course that works both ways: I like to think I’m a reasonable driver, but suspect I’d make a pretty shocking guard.

The Guard role varies from TOC to TOC. If you can do 5+ years of intensive urban/suburban working (portion working, variable door deselects, full door control) as a Guard without (operating) incident, with the level of attentiveness that requires, are known to take the role seriously, ensure you have a proven, thorough understanding of the rules/routes that you should have in that role, have a good disciplinarily/attendance record and then manage to pass the tests/interviews for Driving, you're probably at least as well suited to Driving as the butcher, the baker or the candle stick maker who can be favoured by some TOCs, off what can be ascertained about them in an interview, where what's said can neither be proven or denied.

Maybe 5 years as a TM on an Intercity TOC though, with driver door release, assisted dispatch and less than 20 station stops a day, where the emphasis is very much on revenue protection and customer service, doesn't provide as much opportunity to prove the necessary attributes. But you could say that for some other jobs externals come from too.

 

[Stigy]

Not sure about that one - certainly the trainers were I started claimed to prefer external people (after checking there were no ex railway people in the group)! This was because, so they said, they liked a blank canvas rather than someone who had pre-existing bad habits. Throughout training and since I’ve met some shocking internals and externals, and excellent examples of

I can understand that approach to be honest. In my previous role when I was recruiting, I preferred either internal candidates that were older and wanted to do the job for what it was, rather than some who’d use it as a stepping stone to other things (the salary was good, as was the roster). If I did recruit externally, I tended to steer clear of those with similar backgrounds (police for example) as they often had “been there, done that” attitudes and were also quite arrogant with it sometimes (also, the amount of people from other industries who just wanted to join the railway to eventually become driver was a consideration….I’m all for moving about the company, but I want an element of commitment too). To be honest, I actually preferred those with no experience in the field I was recruiting to at all as long as they demonstrated a desire to succeed and wanted to learn (and could pass the entry tests).

 

[AverageJoe]

I can understand that approach to be honest. In my previous role when I was recruiting, I preferred either internal candidates that were older and wanted to do the job for what it was, rather than some who’d use it as a stepping stone to other things (the salary was good, as was the roster). If I did recruit externally, I tended to steer clear of those with similar backgrounds (police for example) as they often had “been there, done that” attitudes and were also quite arrogant with it sometimes (also, the amount of people from other industries who just wanted to join the railway to eventually become driver was a consideration….I’m all for moving about the company, but I want an element of commitment too). To be honest, I actually preferred those with no experience in the field I was recruiting to at all as long as they demonstrated a desire to succeed and wanted to learn (and could pass the entry tests).

I know you don’t mean it this way but that approach seem a little prejudice to me.
there is probably plenty of been there done it type people who will work a lot harder than a new person.

also the stepping stone thing, well I’m sure we have all done that including yourself to get to the jobs we are in.

very few stay with the same company and work up.

personally I think recruitment should be based on the individual in question, what they offer and how they present themselves.

Interesting to hear that recruitment can be like that though.

 

[craigybagel]

Not sure about that one - certainly the trainers were I started claimed to prefer external people (after checking there were no ex railway people in the group)! This was because, so they said, they liked a blank canvas rather than someone who had pre-existing bad habits. Throughout training and since I’ve met some shocking internals and externals, and excellent examples of both.

Admittedly this probably varies by area. In the London area there are few guards (or other grades) who might naturally apply for driver roles, and many driver vacancies, so you’ll naturally see a lot more externals.

I’d also observe that driving and guarding are completely different jobs and going driving shouldn’t be seen as a line of “promotion”, as some on the railway seem to view it. Of course that works both ways; I like to think I’m a reasonable driver, but suspect I’d make a pretty shocking guard.

To be fair I was speaking more from the point of the management and recruitment teams, rather than the trainers. They have to look at every applicant and decide if they're likely to be a good candidate - but in the case of the internals, they have a lot more information to go on when making that decision, so surely it's an easier choice?

I do agree though that once training starts, the trainers may find it easier to work with the externals since as you say they're working with a black canvas.

And I very much agree that not all good guards make good drivers and vice versa! I've personally never used the word promotion about the move from guard to driver - I feel it demeans a role I was very proud to hold for several years. I'm happier as a driver because I feel the role suits me better, and I enjoy the improved salary that goes with it, but it's not a promotion. Just a move to a different role.

 

[387star]

To be fair I was speaking more from the point of the management and recruitment teams, rather than the trainers. They have to look at every applicant and decide if they're likely to be a good candidate - but in the case of the internals, they have a lot more information to go on when making that decision, so surely it's an easier choice?

I do agree though that once training starts, the trainers may find it easier to work with the externals since as you say they're working with a black canvas.

And I very much agree that not all good guards make good drivers and vice versa! I've personally never used the word promotion about the move from guard to driver - I feel it demeans a role I was very proud to hold for several years. I'm happier as a driver because I feel the role suits me better, and I enjoy the improved salary that goes with it, but it's not a promotion. Just a move to a different role.

A guard I know says all guards should do a least 5 years before going driving

 

[Stigy]

I know you don’t mean it this way but that approach seem a little prejudice to me.
there is probably plenty of been there done it type people who will work a lot harder than a new person.

also the stepping stone thing, well I’m sure we have all done that including yourself to get to the jobs we are in.

very few stay with the same company and work up.

personally I think recruitment should be based on the individual in question, what they offer and how they present themselves.

Interesting to hear that recruitment can be like that though.

You’re right in that I didn’t mean it in a prejudiced way. None of my recruitment was at odds with any protected characteristics as per the equalities act, and it was solely based on what as a recruiting manager we saw as who would be a good fit for the team. If we were going on what was on paper in application forms or CVs, we’d just have recruited former police officers and other emergency service personnel (because they tick all the right boxes on paper).

If anything I’d say it’s more diverse to recruit on the basis I was using, because it’s not a closed shop as such. I’m not against people moving around the company, as I said. However, local management also have to factor in their own budgeting and establishment and if someone comes in and says in 3 years they want to be a train driver, when being interviewed for a different role, I’m not going to recruit that person. Quite obviously. That’s an extreme example, but it’s one I’ve heard, trust me.

 

[niggill617@gma]

Some internals seem to think the job is automatically theres which surprises me. Well it's interesting to read these replies
The Old reaction test involved responding to pedals lights and tones at the same time whilst the mechanical test though probably not relevant anymore involved maths/physics

You suggest the mechanical comprehension test as not relevant anymore? I don't remember any maths or even arithmetic, when I did mine back in 2000; I do remember principles of physics though, in diagrammatic form. This test with regard to the period, was the only one that arguably came close to a logic element.

I have a document in front of me from the OPC it states; "Those who pass mechanical comprehension: did better in training, were more likely to pass training, performed better in the simulator, had higher driver competence ratings on the job". No spears please not my statement, I do wonder why the test was dropped though?

I passed the tests in 2000, and went on to have more years service than days sick no issues, over 18 years. I then had two stopping irregularities, both with route learners in the cab. I was conscious of precursor warning. Yes it happened a 23 m Spad. ( this spad is now subject to ORR investigation in my favour). I was back driving within 2 and a half weeks I think. This was quick by the standards of my former employer. My first trip back was with loco and stock, yes I had a TPWS intervention. Several weeks later I was exonerated as it was technical failure, I was also accused of contemplating a reset and go. The manager got short shrift, he had never driven a train in his life, my actions were correct. I went a further 3 years incident free, notwithstanding the physics campaign and a certain flightless bird. It was time to retire.

In my opinion understanding parameters is more important than psychometric tests. To that end for those that are interested, take a look at, Fast Jet Performance with Tim Davies. Go on you tube and search the aforementioned, re his podcast take on the Shoreham Air Crash, lots of connotations to train operating I think, and forum conduct ? Aside He would be good for a corporate event I think.

Safe train driving is about parameters, good "Gen" and don't be "Gash".

The shield is up as I await the spears.

 

[SVDW995]

Nobody knows what the enhanced bench mark is as this is different for each toc. I wouldn’t beat yourself up, the more you practice the better your chance.


I’ve heard that only the paper tests are enhanced, the computer tests are the same bench mark regardless of whether the toc is standard/enhanced. Is anyone more able to confirm this along with whether the MMI can be enhanced?

Yes, it can all be enhanced. I recently sat with a provider who passes you at standard. Northern confirmed that I’d need to pass the 2Hand (that I failed last time), and the MMI to their enhanced mark (thankfully I met their criteria).

Each TOC/FOC has a different enhanced benchmark, but the standard pass is all the RSSB requires to get your license.

 

[Shunted]

Yes, it can all be enhanced. I recently sat with a provider who passes you at standard. Northern confirmed that I’d need to pass the 2Hand (that I failed last time), and the MMI to their enhanced mark (thankfully I met their criteria).

Each TOC/FOC has a different enhanced benchmark, but the standard pass is all the RSSB requires to get your license.

I recently passed for a company that only requires standard pass but if I apply for a TOC / FOC which requires enhanced, how do I find out if my scores were good enough?

 

[iwasyoungonce]

Good enough = they invite you to the next stage
Not good enough = your binned off (hopefully they tell you)

 

[Robb7]

When I passed mine last year, 2 failed and were sent home.

 

[Shunted]

Good enough = they invite you to the next stage
Not good enough = your binned off (hopefully they tell you)

So you’re saying they check when you initially apply using your national insurance number?

 

[ALPAL]

I recently passed for a company that only requires standard pass but if I apply for a TOC / FOC which requires enhanced, how do I find out if my scores were good enough?

When you apply to a different TOC it will go one of two ways:

• You tell them of your standard pass beforehand and they'll check for you to see if you meet their enhanced standard.
• You are invited to attend the assessment centre again and on the day the OPC staff or TOC/FOC staff will tell you which tests you need to sit again, it may just be a case of all of your assessments are at the correct scores but you need to sit an additional test such as the DFFT. Some TOCs "enhanced" standard my be standard passes on all the routine tests but they also do the DFFT, some may have higher score requirements on all elements including the MMI.